if piracy really were so life-threatening to the copyright industries, and if their bottom lines really were in danger, then they would have tried something other than begging lawmakers to protect them. The fact that they haven't, as Tassi emphasizes, means that there is no real pressure on them to do so: people still buy lots of stuff, piracy isn't really a problem, things are working.

All I would add is that the measures proposed by Big Media to combat piracy tend to be considerably greater economic and cultural threats than piracy itself.

Other than buying politicians to create new laws, what could they realistically do that wouldn't have any impact on existing sales? The obvious thing to do would be to remove all the artificial barriers to buying they have erected in the name of combating piracy, but I can't see that ever happening.

If the industry is struggling, I just don’t see it, as their projects are getting bigger and more costly with each passing year. When a movie bombs or a show gets cancelled, no one ever says “oh, well, piracy.” Rather, it’s the quality of the product that accounts for such failures. Even with relatively high piracy rates across all forms of media, we’re still seeing blockbuster films, shows and games released at a higher rate than ever, and profits to match.

I laughed at this. Not because I think it's wrong, or anything. I had just never thought about it in that way. When NBC canceled Heroes, I didn't find myself saying, "Welp. Piracy killed that one!"

Has anyone on these forums heard of Digital Rights Management? That's what media companies first did to combat piracy.

Now that they know DRM isn't working, they're lobbying governments to rewrite the laws in their favor.

Of course they're changing, into multimedia developers (however ineffectively). They are also downsizing, fast. And they're trying to work together, for the first time, to control prices set by Amazon.

I think the point is that the multimedia companies would look at changing their business models, not circle the wagons, hire more lobbyist and engage in price fixing, i.e. pretty much what they have been doing since the 50's. Yep, for those that don't remember, the music industry has long worked together to control prices on LP's, the cd's and now online.

Many of the multimedia companies are engaging in the same sort of downsizing that every other large corporation is doing since the 80's, cutting the low level grunts and middle managers.

Has anyone on these forums heard of Digital Rights Management? That's what media companies first did to combat piracy.

Now that they know DRM isn't working, they're lobbying governments to rewrite the laws in their favor.

If piracy *mattered*, they would've paid attention to the people who said, "DRM is not going to stop piracy." Instead, we've got, what, twenty years of botched DRM systems of various types? And their solution after the first few failed is "more and bigger DRM?"

Funny how they don't make those kinds of mistakes when it's a matter of game-controller compatibility (they work hard to make them as cross-compatible as possible) or widescreen-vs-standard. They listen to their marketing people when they say "if you do it THIS WAY ONLY, you will lose money." But when the serious research says, "DRM does not save you money; it just annoys paying users and gives pirates a fun challenge while discouraging the word-of-mouth sharing publicity that is what drives your industry"... they ignore it.

If piracy were costing them the m(b)illions they claim, they'd have hard numbers--and be pressing lawsuits with those numbers. Instead, they're pressing lawsuits claiming "we can't be bothered to prove ANY copying actually took place, much less that we lost a measurable amount from it; we want a ruling based on the concept that copying *could have* taken place and therefore, we're owed a statutory amount of damages."

Although I did download pirated ebooks when I first got an ereader, I now find myself buying them. When a Jo Nesbo novel costs you 3.19 pounds, and that might represent a week's reading (or more if you've got a busy life) it's a pretty negligible amount of money. It's less than the cost of a pint. ONE pint!

And if you are buying an indie writer for, say, a pound, it's ridiculously good value.

Although I did download pirated ebooks when I first got an ereader, I now find myself buying them. When a Jo Nesbo novel costs you 3.19 pounds, and that might represent a week's reading (or more if you've got a busy life) it's a pretty negligible amount of money. It's less than the cost of a pint. ONE pint!

And if you are buying an indie writer for, say, a pound, it's ridiculously good value.

pound for pound, books still provide the best value for your entertainment money around.

i just got Brandon Sandersons The Way of Kings (in print). 1200 pages. both the ebook and print are $9. it'll take me probably 2 weeks to read this. in the equivalent time i could probably easily beat a dozen video games at $60 a pop. i couldn't even buy a movie ticket or cd for what the book cost me.

of course indie books are cheaper but even they guarantee at least a solid 2 days of entertainment at minimum.

i used to pirate the bejeezus out of stuff when i first got my kindle, i was like a kid in a candy store. i'll still sample a book here and there. but my adventures on the darkside built up a large stable of authors whose books i must have day 1 and i refuse to wait around for them to maybe show up on a pirate site.

If piracy *mattered*, they would've paid attention to the people who said, "DRM is not going to stop piracy."

Why? It was largely the pirates who were saying that. "Experts" were telling them that DRM would be effective, and they didn't know enough about software to not believe them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If piracy were costing them the m(b)illions they claim, they'd have hard numbers--and be pressing lawsuits with those numbers. Instead, they're pressing lawsuits claiming "we can't be bothered to prove ANY copying actually took place, much less that we lost a measurable amount from it; we want a ruling based on the concept that copying *could have* taken place and therefore, we're owed a statutory amount of damages."

Lack of hard data doesn't mean loss wasn't happening; and the specific reason for the lack of hard data was the inherent insecurity of the web itself, something the publishers had no control over, so they can be forgiven for not having hard data.

That doesn't stop them from wanting to prevent loss. Bottom line is, they went with the most reliable recommendations they had, from the most reputable sources: "DRM would solve the problem." Considering how ignorant the publishers were about the web and software, you can't completely blame them for their choices.

Bottom line is, they went with the most reliable recommendations they had, from the most reputable sources: "DRM would solve the problem." Considering how ignorant the publishers were about the web and software, you can't completely blame them for their choices.

That's what you get when you listen to advisors who are trying to sell you something. I had to laugh when I found out how much the publishers are paying Adobe for their DRM snake oil.